Right, I should not have challenged the claim that the Auschwitz Returns decrypted at Bletchley Park are compatible with the Death Books of Auschwitz by referring to a Nuremberg document.

Still, I'm glad you see the point I was trying to make.

It is of course much easier to present the Auschwitz Returns as compatible with the Death Books since "returns" include transferred prisoners. Thus, it could always be claimed that the Bletchley Park Returns MUST have included a particular number of transferred prisoners.

Anyway, all I am saying is that it is a pity that the available data do not really add up. In this particular case: the number of deaths given in the Death Books and the number of deaths given in a Nuremberg document.

I did not claim that the "Departures by any means" column, "must" contain transfers etc.

Where did you get that from ?

I did not suggest that you or anybody else "should not have challenged the claim that the Auschwitz Returns decrypted at Bletchley Park are compatible with the Death Books of Auschwitz by referring to a Nuremberg document."

You are simply twisting my reply.

To retain any credibility "Dr. Dahl" you should simply admit that you made a mistake in using the August 1943 totals as a basis for criticising NK's claim of compatibility for 1942.

You know full well that there are no HORHUG returns after February 1943. This was discussed earlier in the thread.

So please explain how you came to the conclusion that NK is claiming that the non-existant HORHUG data for August 1943 is in any way compatible with the death books data for August 1943 ?

Your reply again insinuates that NK makes the claim that the HORHUG data and the Death Books data are compatible.

He does not.

He makes this claim for 1942 so why don't you just admit that fact instead of twisting the reality ?

I do not quite understand what I have said to upset you. By saying "I should not have challenged the claim that the Auschwitz Returns decrypted at Bletchley Park are compatible with the Death Books of Auschwitz by referring to a Nuremberg document", I did admit that I made a mistake.

I think it is not that hard to understand why I made this mistake. The paper I was referring to says:

"In the terrible month of August 1942, thirty percent of the Auschwitz male camp population died. A year later, that catastrophic level had been successfully reduced to only one-tenth as much: so that a mere 3% of the camp died in August 1943. It will here be argued that that initial mortality was caused by typhus hitting the camp to a degree far worse than any other German labour-camp and that the subsequent drop was due to a successful implementation of hygiene technology and so-called special treatment protocols.

We here aim to establish that several quite independent databases are coherent and compatible. It will help to have read the previous article which evaluated the British-intelligence monthly decrypts data, comparing their figures with the Auschwitz Death-Books,[1]and showing that they were in accord. We here additionally include a Nurembergdocument which gave statistics on mortality through the German labour-camps over twelve months 1942-3, and does so in terms of percent monthly mortality, as alluded to above.

By showing that these various databases are interlocking and compatible [...]."

Maybe my English is not good enough, but are these italicised sentences not suggesting a compatibility?

There is, by the way, no need to put my name in quotation marks. It is my real name and you may look me up on google, amazon or facebook at any time.

Also, I do not criticise the Bletchley Park Decrypts. I think they are invaluable and help undermining the Holocaust narrative. As I mentioned earlier, the Bletchley Park Decrypts are the main reason I have turned into a Holocaust Skeptic.

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

Thanks so much for your book recommendation. I have downloaded it right away. Yes, Wirths is mentioned quite a number of times. I was surprised to see that Mattogno mentioned Wirths in his "Special Treatment in Auschwitz" only once. Again, thank you very much!

You're welcome, Dr. Dahl, but I only posted the link.....it was Carto's recommendation.

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

I was surprised to see that Mattogno mentioned Wirths in his "Special Treatment in Auschwitz" only once.

I could be wrong, but that may be because the real title of that book should be "Special Treatment" at Auschwitz, as opposed to Special Treatment at Auschwitz. Sonderbehandlung (spelling?) is a term that has a lot of assertions behind it in this whole debate, so Mattogno might have been focusing on that. Not sure.

I do not quite understand what I have said to upset you. By saying "I should not have challenged the claim that the Auschwitz Returns decrypted at Bletchley Park are compatible with the Death Books of Auschwitz by referring to a Nuremberg document", I did admit that I made a mistake.

Your statement above, which you now claim was an admission of a mistake, does not describe the mistake you made.

Your "mistake" was attempting to criticise the claim that the 1942 HORHUG data for Aushwitz is compatible with the 1942 death books data, by attempting to use the discrepancy between the death books data for August 1943 and the data in the Nuremberg document for August 1943.

That is an entirely separate issue and so that was your "mistake", to which you still have not admitted and which you are still dodging.

So why don't you simply admit that ?

Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:I think it is not that hard to understand why I made this mistake. The paper I was referring to says:

"In the terrible month of August 1942, thirty percent of the Auschwitz male camp population died. A year later, that catastrophic level had been successfully reduced to only one-tenth as much: so that a mere 3% of the camp died in August 1943. It will here be argued that that initial mortality was caused by typhus hitting the camp to a degree far worse than any other German labour-camp and that the subsequent drop was due to a successful implementation of hygiene technology and so-called special treatment protocols.

We here aim to establish that several quite independent databases are coherent and compatible. It will help to have read the previous article which evaluated the British-intelligence monthly decrypts data, comparing their figures with the Auschwitz Death-Books,[1]and showing that they were in accord. We here additionally include a Nurembergdocument which gave statistics on mortality through the German labour-camps over twelve months 1942-3, and does so in terms of percent monthly mortality, as alluded to above.

By showing that these various databases are interlocking and compatible [...]."

I disagree.

It is quite obviously very difficult to understand, why you, an educated, scientific person, who is presumably used to reading, understanding and interpreting papers / essays etc., would introduce a specious claim such as you did.

All the more difficult to understand why you chose the month of August 1943 to base that claim upon, when you know full well that no HORHUG data exists for August 1943.

We have already covered this. NK was discussing the reduction in the mortality caused by the typhus epidemic which began in 1942. He avers compatibility between the HORHUG 1942 data and the 1942 death books data.

You are now being given another opportunity to explain what persuaded you to attempt to present NK's compatibility claim as being anything to do with August 1943, when you know full well that there is no HORHUG data for August 1943.

How can you suggest that he is claiming compatibility between one dataset which does exist and another which you know does not exist ?

Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:Maybe my English is not good enough, but are these italicised sentences not suggesting a compatibility?

Au contraire, your English seems perfect.

I am entirely confident that even as a non-native English speaker, you are able to discern the difference between 1942 and 1943.

I would have expected a person of scientific training and experience, to have first evaluated the information presented and then, if choosing to present a critique of that information, to do so with substantive facts.

What you have attempted to do is offer some specious critique, by using a discrepancy between two other datasets.

You know full well that no data compatibility claim is being made for August 1943, either between the HORHUG & death books data, nor the HORHUG and the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS data, nor the death books data and the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS data.

Yet you, presumably drawing on your methodical, scientific analysis expertise, chose to present the discrepancy between the death books data for August 1943 and the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS data for August 1943, as somehow highlighting a problem with the compatibility claim between the 1942 HORHUG data and the 1942 death books data.

Apples and oranges is hardly representative of any scientific method I know of.

Now why would you even attempt to do such a thing when you know full well that no HORHUG data exists for August 1943 ?

How could any sane person make a claim for compatibilty between one dataset and another, which does not exist ?

How could any scientifically trained professional person, such as yourself, attempt to present that specious nonsense as somehow being proof of something else ?

"Your 'mistake' was attempting to criticise the claim that the 1942 HORHUG data for Aushwitz is compatible with the 1942 death books data, by attempting to use the discrepancy between the death books data for August 1943 and the data in the Nuremberg document for August 1943."

This is a misunderstanding. In my mind, the HORHUG data are the most reliable source we have on Auschwitz!

When reading about these data in "Breaking the Spell", I was glad to see that they are also compatible with the data from the Auschwitz Death Books. This compatibility supports the claim that the entries made in the Auschwitz Death Books may indeed be correct.

Then I came accross the Nuremberg document. This document confirms the general trend shown in the Auschwitz Death Books that the number of deaths was decreasing in 1943. Unfortunately, it only confirms the general trend in mortality, not the exact numbers in mortality. This is a pity, but it does in no way challenge the HORHUG data. If the Nuremberg document calls anything into question, it is the number of deaths given in the Auschwitz Death Books.

Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:In the paper "The Successful Endeavour to Reduce Camp Mortality"*, it is claimed that the data from the Bletchley Park Decrypts are compatible with the data from the Death Books of Auschwitz. I wished this was the case. It seems, however, as if the two sets of data are not quite as compatible as claimed.

According to the Death Books of Auschwitz, there were 811 deaths in August 1943. In a table linked to the above mentioned paper, however, there were 2.380 deaths in August 1943 (1.442 men and 983 women).

So, that very much appears that you attempted to challenge the claim that there is compatibility between the 1942 HORHUG data and the Auschwitz death books for 1942, by using an example from August 1943.

That is what this discussion has been about.

You are now saying that you did not challenge the HORHUG data, when nobody has accused you of doing any such thing.

A simple mea culpa would suffice instead of moving the goalposts on each reply.

.

Last edited by Horhug on Thu May 21, 2015 7:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

I am a philosopher specialised in bioethics. Until recently I have worked at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in Münster and as a Lecturer for Medical Ethics at the University of Münster.

Still, you are wrong in stating that I "attempted to challenge the claim that there is compatibility between the 1942 HORHUG data and the Auschwitz death books for 1942." How could I possibly challenge the compatibility of the 1942 Bletchley Park Decrypts with the 1942 Auschwitz Death Books by presenting a Nuremberg document of 1943?

As I said, the number of deaths given in the Nuremberg document of August 1943 is at odds with the number of deaths given in the Death Books of August 1943. This has nothing to do with the 1942 Horhug data. And I would never have brought up the Nuremberg document of 1943 if N.K. had not referred to it in his paper.

So can we please move on? There are two other issues I would quite like your opinion on.

Sorry if I missed it and apologize beforehand, but I was wondering is there somewhere comparison between HORHUG figures (departures) and these Death Books as a table? In BP figures for some dates are missing, but would be anyhow perhaps helpful to show how well they indeed match. This could be effective way to silence those who think these figures have room for anything else but natural deaths.

I have tried to reply to your personal message. It seems, however, as if my reply got stuck in the "outbox".

This is normal. It fooled me too the first time. It will stay in the outbox until the recipient has opened it. Until then you can modify or delete it. When it disappears you know it's been read. Quite useful once you know. If only email could work like that!